The grounds for recognizing that artists possess a personal “moral right of integrity” that would entitle them to prevent others from modifying their works are weak. There is, however, an important (and legislation-worthy) public interest in protecting highly-valued entities, including at least some works of art, from permanently destructive transformations.

Are government restrictions on hate speech consistent with the priority of liberty? This relatively narrow policy question will serve as the starting point for a wider discussion of the use and abuse of nonideal theory in contemporary political philosophy, especially as practiced on the academic left. I begin by showing that hate speech (understood as group libel) can undermine fair equality of opportunity for historically-oppressed groups but that the priority of liberty seems to forbid its restriction. This tension between free (...) speech and equal opportunity creates a dilemma for liberal egalitarians. Nonideal theory apparently offers an escape from this dilemma, but after examining three versions of such an escape strategy, I conclude that none is possible: liberal egalitarians are indeed forced to choose between liberty and equality in this case and others. I finish the paper by examining its implications for other policy arenas, including markets in transplantable human organs and women’s reproductive services. (shrink)

Human rights culture has often been accused of a certain imbalance. For instance, it is often said that the practitioners of human rights (i.e., lawyers, politicians, judges, legislators, intellectual advocates, activists, etc.) are too quick to proclaim the existence of rights and too slow to define or allocate attendant duties. In this article, I address one complaint of this sort: the so-called “claimability objection” to human rights. My central aim is to unearth some of the conceptual complexity underlying that objection. (...) What that analysis reveals, in the broadest of terms, is that claimability is not the obedient philosophical concept that it has been made out to be. On the contrary, its invocation has ramifications that, I suggest, have not been adequately foreseen by its main proponents. To illustrate this point I focus specifically on the work of Onora O’Neill, whose claimability-based critique of welfare rights is at the very center of contemporary debates about this topic. I shall, in particular, challenge two important aspects of O’Neill’s critique. First, in Section III, I question its narrowness. O’Neill understands the claimability of a right to depend on the identification of its duty-bearers. But if we attend to the basic logic of her discussion, it becomes clear that the claimability of a right depends on more than just that; indeed, a whole range of factors – including the determinacy of a right’s weight, content, and holders – become relevant. This undermines O’Neill’s assertion that only certain kinds of purported human rights (i.e., second-generation welfare, as opposed to first-generation liberty rights) are subject to the claimability objection. Moreover, it shifts the natural target of that objection over to the more expansive category of abstract rights. The second challenge that I put to O’Neill’s critique raises fundamental doubts about whether claimability (as O’Neill herself understands it) is a necessary feature of rights at all. This I do in Section V. But before I get to that I discuss (in Section IV) different ways in which the domestic, regional, and international legal practice of human rights is less opaque about deontic matters than might appear at first glance. This claim, I suggest, not only provides us with a possible (if ultimately fragile) way of responding to O’Neill’s critique, it illustrates both the instructive and expressive value that legal practices can have for moral thinking about human rights. Lastly, in Section VI, I reflect more generally on the role of abstraction in the theory and practice of human rights. Thus, by allaying claimability-based concerns about abstraction in Section V, and by illustrating some of the positive functions of abstraction in Section VI, I hope to show that abstract rights are not only coherent but also useful and important. (shrink)

One of the most high-profile debates in Chinese philosophy concerns the compatibility of human and individual rights with basic Confucian doctrines and practices. Defenders of the incompatibilist view argue that rights are inconsistent with Confucianism because rights are (necessarily) role-independent obligations and entitlements, whereas Confucians think that all obligations and entitlements are role-dependent. Two other arguments have to do with the practice of claiming one's own rights, holding (a) that claiming one's rights undercuts family-like community bonds and (b) that giving (...) everyone license to claim her own rights is incompatible with certain hierarchical social structures that Confucians value. In this essay, I show that these arguments are too crudely formulated to identify the real points of contention with rights compatibilism, and then develop versions of two of the arguments which, when properly qualified, pose a more serious challenge for those who think rights and a license to claim one's own rights are consistent with core Confucian views. (shrink)

One of the most high-profile debates in Chinese philosophy concerns the compatibility of human and individual rights with basic Confucian doctrines and practices. Defenders of the incompatibilist view argue that rights are inconsistent with Confucianism because rights are (necessarily) role-independent obligations and entitlements, whereas Confucians think that all obligations and entitlements are role-dependent. Two other arguments have to do with the practice of claiming one's own rights, holding (a) that claiming one's rights undercuts family-like community bonds and (b) that giving (...) everyone license to claim her own rights is incompatible with certain hierarchical social structures that Confucians value. In this essay, I show that these arguments are too crudely formulated to identify the real points of contention with rights compatibilism, and then develop versions of two of the arguments which, when properly qualified, pose a more serious challenge for those who think rights and a license to claim one's own rights are consistent with core Confucian views. (shrink)

A question of interpersonal sovereignty dating back to the early modern era has resurfaced in contemporary political philosophy: viz. Should one individual have, prior to any consent, property rights in another person? Libertarians answer that they should not – and that this commitment requires us to reject all positive duties. Liberal-egalitarians largely agree with the libertarian’s answer to the question, but deny the corollary they draw from it, arguing instead that egalitarian regimes do not require other-ownership. Drawing on recent property (...) theory I argue the libertarians are wrong that positive duties necessarily imply other-ownership, and the egalitarians are wrong that egalitarian entitlements largely avoid other-ownership. Instead, a prohibition on other-ownership guides us towards a middling political position, both allowing and constraining our positive duties and liabilities to others. I conclude by suggesting that a prohibition on other-ownership creates an attractive boundary condition for property in general. (shrink)

Are there moral rights to do moral wrong? A right to do wrong is a right that others not interfere with the right-holder’s wrongdoing. It is a right against enforcement of duty, that is a right that others not interfere with one’s violation of one’s own obligations. The strongest reason for moral rights to do moral wrong is grounded in the value of personal autonomy. Having a measure of protected choice (that is a right) to do wrong is a condition (...) for an autonomous life and for autonomous moral self-constitution. This view has its critics. Responding to these objections reveals that none refute the coherence of the concept of a ‘moral right to do moral wrong’. At most, some objections successfully challenge the weight and frequency of the personal autonomy reasons for such rights. Autonomy-based moral rights to do moral wrong are therefore conceptually possible as well as, at least on occasion, actual. (shrink)

Are there moral rights to do moral wrong? A right to do wrong is a right that others not interfere with the right-holder’s wrongdoing. It is a right against enforcement of duty, that is a right that others not interfere with one’s violation of one’s own obligations. The strongest reason for moral rights to do moral wrong is grounded in the value of personal autonomy. Having a measure of protected choice (that is a right) to do wrong is a condition (...) for an autonomous life and for autonomous moral self-constitution. This view has its critics. Responding to these objections reveals that none refute the coherence of the concept of a ‘moral right to do moral wrong’. At most, some objections successfully challenge the weight and frequency of the personal autonomy reasons for such rights. Autonomy-based moral rights to do moral wrong are therefore conceptually possible as well as, at least on occasion, actual. (shrink)